Rondo vs Outlander/Rav4/Santa Fe/Mazda5

Comments

According to Kicking Tires, the cars will hit the dealerships Winter 2007 in the US. I'm assuming Canada is very close to that given how they are shipped from Japan. Now, they will be "officially" announced in the Mazda site Mid November (it seems).

Talking about weird comparisons, but this one makes more sense though. The Mazda5 has an excellent turning ratio to maneuver (i.e. to park) and is not as a gas guzzler as other cars. 19MPG seems a low number, but I'm assuming purely heavy city driving.

There aren't many minivans that scream "city-friendly," but the Mazda5 takes the family-hauler concept and shrinks it to a manageable size that still has room for six. The 2008 model has a fresh look but retains its distinct Japanese edginess. Even though it's 20 inches shorter than a Honda Odyssey, the Mazda5 is still substantial, coming in at almost exactly the same length as a Toyota RAV4. Steering is sharp for tight parking maneuvers, and the ride is relatively smooth.Length: 181.5 inchesTurning circle: 34.8 feetSeats: 6City MPG: 19

Agree, my bad :blush:. My wording was based on the fact that Cars.com had to compare all these diff. "purpose" cars to get to the final list, but I get it, did not look like an apples to apples type thing.

Those numbers look good in the Uplander BTW, I really like that car, problem I'm not into SUVs. Also, SUVs are not really hot for city driving IMO.

Uplander???? Thats one of the worst minivans on the market. You should test Mitsubishi Outlander yourself to find it'snear perfect handling and performance. The numbers are much better than any minivan out there, and better than most SUVs.

Coolmazda5, setting the legroom issue aside, Montreal is currently under a severe winter storm warning and have received close to 25cm and counting. I had no problem plowing through the white stuff due to the Rondo's standard equiped ESC and Traction Control. I seriously doubt that the mazda5 could even match that performance.

If you call 31.7cu.ft. with the 3rd row down not much room compared to 15cu.ft. with the Mazda5. You have to lay flat both the 2nd and 3rd row seats to accomplish 30cu.ft. of space within the Mazda5 vs 73.4cu.ft. in the Rondo with the same config. There is no comparison!

Very good observation, but off-topic. I would like to see some pics with people inside the Rondo to really evaluate the space (not the published specs). Again, it is not just about the Rondo, it is about any smaller vehicle with a 3rd row seat (i.e. a RAV4). As I mentioned here some time back, if I need to seat 6 average size adults in my car at least 90% of the time I would have gone for a Suburban, a Honda Odyssey or a Toyota Sienna. Since that is not the case, when I have a full house (including a large stroller in the back of the 3rd row) I don't mind the comfort too much.

With regards to snow, I also live in a cold area and I've seen a lot of powerful SUVs with all the nice toys stranded (ESC, AWD, Traction Control, etc.), so it is not the toys added in many instances, is knowing how to drive under those conditions.

It's all about personal choice. Both vehicles have similar characteristics in all categories. Some people associate the Kia brand with reliability issues and some are concerned with various features offered with the Kia and not with the Mazda5. All in all, both vehicles have very good reviews that cannot be ignored. You're alright in my book coolmazda5. BTW, nice PICS!!

The Traction Control ans Stability Control are very nice things to have. I do happen to have a Mazda5 and we have been been dealing with snow all last week. I will admit that we have a set of Dunlop Wintersport 3Ds on the 5 and it have performed very well in conditions ranging from compact snow/ice to deep snow. On ice, the traction can be a bit hard to come by, but the Auto allows for starting in second gear which helps significantly. That, along with careful throttle modulation gets it going easily.

I don't want to come across as saying that TC and ESP are useless, but I have never had either on a car and have managed to survive winter using careful driving techniques. I also believe that TC and ESP can lull some drivers into a false sense of security. Once the snow starts in my area, a large percentage of accidents are the result of drivers going too fast for conditions (mainly AWD SUVs). I also have driven with and without snow tires (studded and studless) and believe that a good set of snow tires is a good investment for those in snow climates. While TC and ESP may definitely help in those rare, unforseen circumstances, I would still want a good set of snow tires for their superior braking and cornering performance in the nasty stuff.

I believe the photo is a good thing and can see you observation. I Like how the driver appears to be relatively short. Only thing I can point out as a Mazda5 owner is that the legroom in a little different than we traditionally think about in the 5. It is the same what with my Toyota ECHO and also with a Mazda 3 that I had for a loaner. The apparent legroom is a bit tight, but the cars are engineered to sit more upright and provide toe space under the front seats. with a full load of adults on board, it is still a bit of a pinch, but that is the compromise of these vehicles.

I had researched the Rondo and Mazda5 before buying and the reviews cam across as the 3rd rows being very alike. The Rondo did have more measured legroom, but you sit lower, which is another tradeoff. Both the Rondo and MZ5 are fine cars that fit different needs for people.

So there is more legroom in the Rondo, but the opening in the 2nd row of the Mazda5 between the two seats might make is seem less cramped than with the Rondo's 2nd row bench. Plus I doubt if the Rondo's 3rd row passengers will feel any of the AC from the 2nd row vents, but they would in the Mazda5 again, because of the 2nd row captain chairs will allow air to flow between them to the 3rd row.

You do get more cargo space behind the 2nd row of the Mazda5, so if you're using it mostly as a 2 row vehicle, then I'd rather have the additional cargo space. It's like my Honda Fit. The Versa has more 2nd row legroom than the Fit, but the Fit has more cargo space behind the 2nd row. Since our family of 4 fit in the Fit just fine, I went with the Fit for the better cargo space.

So it depends on if you want the extra legroom inches of the Rondo or extra CuFt of the Mazda5.

I agree, some car designs create legroom for front and back occupants by virtually making the occupants to sit straight up. Imagine you are sitting on a stool at a bar, your legs are dangling towards the floor instead of resting your feet on the floor with your knees banded at 90 degree.

With legs elongated and extended downwards, less lateral room is required. The side effects are less comfortable sitting position and tall ceiling. I first noticed this trend of designing also with the Toyota Echo and Matrix. For a relatively small vehicle, there seemed to be a lot of legroom and headroom. However, the styling really suffered as it looked like a loaf of bread with the tall roof line. Subsequently, I noticed the Honda fit, Mazda 5 and Nissan Versa were designed with the same tricks to create legrooms.

Mazda figures on 2007 for storage was very strange and same on the Canadian site, but now they seem more realistic with the 2008 information as they now state 70.9 cu.ft. with the 2nd and 3rd seats folded which makes more sense when I had actually measured both vehicles. The Rondo is 73.4 cu.ft. for the same area.

Passenger cargo room 97.7 cu.ft. for the Mazda 5 and 107.8 for the Rondo. The Rondo 5-seater has storage through to the dash on the passengers side as you can recline the back of the back seat but the 6/7-seater set up is basically the same on both vehicles.

There are definitely more and more cars taking up this design philosophy and I think it works well. as far as the differences between the Rondo and Mazda 5 goes, I just don't think they are that much different. I t somewhat reminds me of the late 80s with cars like the Ford Taurus competing with the Honda Accords at the time. The Ford was a little bigger here and there and offered V6 power, but still decent fuel economy. The Accord was known as a good handling car, but the truth is that the Tauruses weren't that bad. Rondo vs Mazda 5 is that same kind of thing. Each offers it's own take. My wife and I love our 5 and would highly recommend it. That doesn't mean I would discount the Rondo. For us the sliding doors sealed the deal. We worried about the Rondo's relatively large rear door in the tight parking lots often seen here. Also, Our garage is rather small (both in depth and width), so the sliders made more sense there.

I'm not sure about the behind the 1st row cargo space, but the 2008 Mazda5 webpage shows 44.4 CuFt vs 31.7 for the Rondo, so that's about 13 CuFt more, or about the size of a small car's trunk. To me that's a lot of extra space for our family of 4's stuff.

And while our Fit has upright seating, it's not any more upright than a minivan or SUV seat, so I'm fine with that.